October 2, 2011

"We don't believe in a small America. We believe in a big America ---- a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America -- that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we're all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody. That's what we believe. That's what we're going to be fighting for."

I wonder if this high level of abstraction is going to work for him a second time. He is more specific in the previous paragraph, saying something that is hard to grasp — that the Republican candidates don't support the men and women in the military — unless you combine it with the meme that, at the last debate, they condoned or tolerated the booing of a gay soldier:

We don't believe in standing silent when that happens. We don't believe in them being silent since. You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient.

The meme is false, as explained here. There is a contagious lie and the President — he who often speaks of transcending divisiveness — is enthusiastically spreading it... while — ironically! — posing in the mantle of oneness, E pluribus unum. The crowd goes wild, by the way. Listen to the audio (at the link). They find the infected red meat scrumptious! And can you blame the poor man? He must serve something to the assembled hungry masses, and this — this! — is the best he's got.

And what does "We don't believe in them being silent since" mean? It's not a transcription error. I've checked the audio. Did he misread the TelePrompTer? There's no simple fix, like combining it with the next line, "You want to be Commander-in-Chief?" The pronouns don't match up. But the crowd loves it. This gibberish is quite delicious!

'The way I think about it," Barack Obama told a TV station in Orlando, "is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft."

He has a point. This is a great, great country that got so soft that 53% of electors voted for a ludicrously unqualified chief executive who would be regarded as a joke candidate in any serious nation.

One should not begrudge a man who seizes his opportunity. But one should certainly hold in contempt those who allow him to seize it on the basis of such flaccid generalities as "hope" and "change": That's more than "a little" soft.

I'm still waiting for you to blame yourself, Ann - not Obama. Acting like you had no role in his lies - when you put him in the White House - is as dishonest as what we does.

You both lie everyday. He, about what he's doing, and you about how he got there to do it.

It don't think it will work a second time. This time around people know that he's not what he told them he was. He can't talk about being inclusive with any credibility because people have seen how decisive he is. He can't talk about changing Washington because he didn't. He can't talk about raising the level of discourse because he lowered it. Compared to his speeches George W was Gandhi.

I think Obama is kind of misled by polls on Republican difficulties which are caused by the fact that Republicans are actually trying to deal with the financial problems - and this causes temporary unpopularity. So he throws out these itsy-bitsy spider attacks. He climbs up the water spout with some temporarily popular attack. Down comes more economic bad news and everyone forgets - out comes the sun of media approval - and itsy-bitsy climbs up again. But look at the elections since Scott Brown - the Democrats keep losing. So I think that the water (economic reality)is coming down faster than the sun (lame stream media) can dry him out and the Republicans will win and had better then enact reform like Gov. Walker) That's my narrative.

we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody.

Translation: we believe in having one national bank account where some make only deposits and others make only withdraws, and in one big government trough where my connected buddies can get both their front trotters all the way in when they eat.

I wonder if this high level of abstraction is going to work for him a second time______________

For many of us, it did not work the first time. We knew the first time that underlying his high level of abstraction was a series of insults and demonizations and appeals to resentment and envy and rage.

The problem with all this is that the American people are, by and large, basically decent people who do not want to spend their time riled up, resenting other groups of people, angry all the time, always thinking in terms of "us vs. them" and constantly "going after" this group or that group.

After a while, they say, "enough with the mob mentality" and, like that great social commentator Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

in hindsight today, do you seriously think John McCain would have been worse?_______________

America would have been worse off with John McCain because we would still be in denial. We would still have the delusional thinking that if we tweek a little here and adjust a little there that it will all work.

McCain would have been twice as good as Obama. Which is to say he would have been half as bad. And half as bad as catastrophic is still a total disaster.

But instead of properly blaming liberal and squishy "moderate" policies for our misfortune, people would be blaming those very conservatives who have tried to prevent these things from happening in the first place.

Barack Obama has done two things right. He has done America two enormous services -- He destroyed the Clinton machine and he has given us pure, undiluted leftism in government.

Instead of it all being hypothetical, instead of pointy-headed leftists in universities advocating neo-Marxism, but never really getting it, so that they could continue to con people into thinking that it would work if tried, now it has been tried, and shown to be the utter disaster that we knew it would be.

America needed to see, on full display in all its glory, what the Democrat party is really all about.

The people to whom he is speaking would have no idea about the alleged booing unless he very explicitly pointed it out. His audience is chosen for its suseptibility for its very lack of knowledge of current events except in the broadest and crudest way. The professor gives way too much credit to the audiences who will enthusiastically cheer Obama if he recited pancake recipes.

@Bender: With that in mind and with what you know now about Obama's Marxist approach, would you vote for Obama or McCain if the 2008 election were held tomorrow?

Several pundits supported the idea of voting in a horrible choice in order to "educate" the public. I'm not sure I agree 100% with the approach, but I understand the reasoning behind it. If the result is a President and Congress with fiscal sanity, perhaps the struggle is worth it.

I guess I will take your listening to the video as a debunking as opposed to those who were there, but I wonder why the Republicans, at least one of them, didn't answer I respect your service to the country but I disagree with your opinion-- that lack of respect from the candidates, in my mind, shows them in a very negative light.

"We don't believe in them being silent since" I don't understand your problem with the construction. He's saying the candidates were silent when the person booed, and they've been silent since ["then" being understood]. I don't think the sentence is accurate because at least one candidate spoke up since, but the construction is fine.

He never mentioned duty or serving his country or being part of his outfit. That's why the question, not the man, was booed.

As I said at the time, stupid and self-serving.”

Why should he have to mention his duty or outfit? He is obviously in the Army and stationed in Iraq.

Because you don't get to choose where you're sent in the Army. And duty and the chance to serve their country are a big part of why most people join.

You can get a job anywhere.

As far as being stupid and self serving, I think given the position of some of the candidates on DADT, he had a legitimate question. The audience’s response clearly reinforced his concerns.

Try again. As Ann noted, and a lot of other people notices, only one idiot booed (FWIW, I don't think there should be audiences at these things anyway), so the audience's response was to listen and wait for Santorum to answer.

BTW, I don't notice fiend saying anything about Dan Savage's barbaric remarks about Santorum, but, of course, civility on the Left only goes one way.

PS If fiend wants to learn about why people serve and what duty means, he might want to check out Sgt Dakota Manning's opinion of how much a of a hero he is or SFC Leroy Petry's plans for future service.

“Because you don't get to choose where you're sent in the Army. And duty and the chance to serve their country are a big part of why most people join.”

What did this have to do with Stephen Hill’s question about reinstating DADT?

“You can get a job anywhere.”

Yes, that’s why there are over 14 million Americans currently unemployed.

“Try again. As Ann noted, and a lot of other people notices, only one idiot booed (FWIW, I don't think there should be audiences at these things anyway), so the audience's response was to listen and wait for Santorum to answer.”

Ann stated, base on her perception that only one person audibly yelled 'boo', the President’s meme was false and that his comments about being silent are delicious gibberish. I obviously disagree. By the way, how many boos does it take before it becomes an issue? 5, 10? What's the cutoff?

“BTW, I don't notice fiend saying anything about Dan Savage's barbaric remarks about Santorum, but, of course, civility on the Left only goes one way.”

As I understand the situation, Savage’s remarks and web page were in response to Santorun’s “man on dog” comparison to homosexuality.

“PS If fiend wants to learn about why people serve and what duty means, he might want to check out Sgt Dakota Manning's opinion of how much a of a hero he is or SFC Leroy Petry's plans for future service.”

I had over 24 years on active duty in the Air Force. I have a pretty good idea on why people serve.

“Fiend never renounces Savage (surprise!), weasels on the one idiot, and takes refuge in an irrelevant argument about getting a job.”

As I understand it, Savage will retract his remarks and website when Santorum retracts his “man on dog” sex comparison to homosexuality. I don’t understand the “weasels on the one idiot” comment. The guy booed and no one on the stage addressed it. Like I asked, what’s the cutoff before someone on the stage will address the issue? If the soldier had asked about another issue, say proposed cuts to retirement benefits for example, and he was booed by one “idiot”, do you think someone on stage would have addressed that boo? How about the audience?

“Mr Hill (don't know his rank) was only concerned about losing his career, not his chance to serve.”

If he lost his career because of the reinstatement of DADT, he will lose the opportunity to serve. They’re clearly interrelated.

I voted for McCain in 2008, but agree with Bender that even though I oppose Obama's policies and I think he's doing bad things for the country, in some ways it's preferable that he got elected when he did instead of McCain. If McCain had been elected, things would still have been bad, but conservatives would have been blamed for all of the country's problems (even though we all know McCain was never really a conservative). If McCain had been elected in 2008, Obama would be out demagoguing at least as much as he has as President, but because he was not the President, people would still be listening to him. Now at least, more and more people are tuning him out.

I agree with those who say that the problem isn't strictly speaking with Barack Obama, but with a voting public capable of electing such a man to the presidency. As Mark Steyn wrote so memorably yesterday in response to Obama's claim about the country having gotten a little 'soft': He has a point. This is a great, great country that got so soft that 53 percent of electors voted for a ludicrously unqualified chief executive who would be regarded as a joke candidate in any serious nation. One should not begrudge a man who seizes his opportunity. But one should certainly hold in contempt those who allow him to seize it on the basis of such flaccid generalities as “hope” and “change”: That’s more than “a little” soft.

The liberal left is ever driven by emotion. Hit the right buttons and they react with robotic fervor. My wifes' eldest daughter is an O'bot, and my wife has been trying for 4 years to get her to sit down and actually listen to what the angry sock monkey sez.

Listening to an Obama speech is like playing a board game... you have a bag of liberal catch phrases. You reach into the bag and grab a phrase an place it randomly on a board. The person on your left takes their turn etc.. after so many turns VOILA.. an Obama speech.

“Fiend never renounces Savage (surprise!), weasels on the one idiot, and takes refuge in an irrelevant argument about getting a job.”

As I understand it, Savage will retract his remarks and website when Santorum retracts his “man on dog” sex comparison to homosexuality.

No justification. Savage has used Santorum's name as a euphemism of sodomy and has used the kind of rape language heretofore reserved for Sarah Palin; he is beyond indefensible.

I don’t understand the “weasels on the one idiot” comment.

Fiend wants a quota on how many boos before they get answered. How many slurs against any Republican before the Lefties renounce it?

We're still waiting.

The guy booed and no one on the stage addressed it. Like I asked, what’s the cutoff before someone on the stage will address the issue?

They didn't hear it.

End of story.

If the soldier had asked about another issue, say proposed cuts to retirement benefits for example, and he was booed by one “idiot”, do you think someone on stage would have addressed that boo? How about the audience?

Again, nobody on stage heard it, but a question like fiend mentions wouldn't have been used.

The TV people wanted something provocative.

“Mr Hill (don't know his rank) was only concerned about losing his career, not his chance to serve.”

If he lost his career because of the reinstatement of DADT, he will lose the opportunity to serve. They’re clearly interrelated.

Then he should have put it in those terms.

He didn't. The question was about his "job".

PS Have to agree with sorepaw, Santorum is the lightest of weights. He's going nowhere.

Why would that matter? Should only gay people care about or have standing to discuss gay rights issues?

If Obama is so concerned about gay people's rights, why is he opposed to gay marriage and intent on keeping the State's stupid monopoly on the definition of civil marriage?

On the first point, he supports civil unions, which is more than most social conservatives and GOP presidential candidates do. And I suspect his opposition to gay marriage (a semantic point, if civil unions have all the bundle of rights of marriage) is more of a political talking point than anything else. I think that is a little bit chickenshit, but Obama is operating in a country where a large part of the electorate thinks he's a seekrit mooslim Alinsky national socialist, so I have to cut him some slack on that. Also, Obama isn't unique in "keeping the State's stupid monopoly on the definition of civil marriage". All mainstream politicians do, in both parties. The only people who argue against that are libertarians on the internet, who have some good ideas, but don't actually have much real political influence.

“No justification. Savage has used Santorum's name as a euphemism of sodomy and has used the kind of rape language heretofore reserved for Sarah Palin; he is beyond indefensible.”

Why doesn’t Santorum just apologize for comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality? Why is that so difficult for him?

“Fiend wants a quota on how many boos before they get answered. How many slurs against any Republican before the Lefties renounce it?”

You are the one stating it was only “one idiot” that booed. You’re establishing a quota requirement. I’m simply asking what is the minimum number before it becomes an issue for you. What do slurs against Santorum have to do with booing a soldier serving his country during war? Stephen Hill wasn’t throwing a slur at Santorum, he was just asking him a question based on his views. Santorum made disparaging remarks about homosexuals in the past. Unfortunately, now there’s a contest between him and Savage. If he apologizes for the “man on dog sex” comments, that would go a long way to solve the issue.

“They didn't hear it. End of story.”

But several other presidential candidates told ABC News that they did hear the boos ring through the Orange County Convention Center, chants that were spurred by a question gay soldier Stephen Hill asked about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

“Then he should have put it in those terms. He didn't. The question was about his "job".”

Of course it was about his job – his job serving the country. Again, he’s concerned about his job in the future because of the position against DADT that Santorum and apparently other people in the audience hold.

When he referenced the "silence from them since" I think he was talking about the Republican candidates failure to condemn the remarks since the time of the debate. Inartfully stated, but at least it's not total gibberish. Of course, an honest and fair person would admit that no one is booing the soldier himself. Too much to expect, I guess...

So, you are the frog that prefers that the water be heated and brought to a boil slowly?

Sorry, but painful though it might be, it is far better for everyone involved that we know quickly that the water is boiling hot, so that we might still have time to do something about it.

Now, unfortunately, there are some in the GOP who want us, in the next election, to go back to the slowly-heated water, rather than getting out of the water altogether. That would be a horrendous mistake. And that is only one reason why I will NEVER vote for Romney.

I was in the audience and were we ALL collectively HORRIFIED when ONE ~ count it ~ ONE ~ loud "BOO" with a smattering of quieter, quickly shushed hoots rang out. It was an appalling display and shut down immediately.

The biggest, most pernicious lie being spread by this LIAR of a President and his media toadies is that the entire audience took part in that disgusting outburst, when, in fact, it was perpetrated by barely a handful of idiots at the back of a roomful of almost 5000 people. And over in a snap.

We don't believe in them being silent. Since you want to be Commander-in-Chief, you can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient.

Admittedly, O must have recombined parts of three sentences to accomplish this, but that's plausible.

"No. However, the use of this wedge issue is something the GOP has done in the past."

So that makes it o.k. for your "team" to do it? See, this is why I find political types despicable.

"My understanding is that his position is still evolving on the issue of gay marriage. He’s been clear about that."

LOL. Comedy GOLD. Take note, everyone! Obama has been clear about the fact that his position is unclear!

So how long will this complicated evolution process take? Are we talking on a Darwinian scale? Will a black monolith appear in his bedroom one night and he'll touch it and turn instantly into a vast gay marriage supporting orbiting Star-Child?

This "his position is evolving" idea has a name: horseshit.

"And the right doesn’t use issues like the gays or religion to get people to vote for them?"

Again, this makes it o.k. for your "team" to play politics with people's rights... why, exactly? Because some people on the right wrongly want to use the government for social and moral engineering gives you license to do it too?

On the issue of civil marriage, as with so many other issues, the only good solution is to remove the government, and thus politics, from the equation altogether.

But that wouldn't allow you political types to play the blessed saviors and givers of rights would it?

The Democrat party can go fuck itself, as far as I'm concerned. Keep your filthy laws and false concerns and cynical politics out of my private life.

Maybe Obama got the idea from HuffPo at an earlier debate. Not too long ago I challenged someone who SWORE that the headline to this piece reflected the truth: The audience wanted a man without insurance to DIE. Unfortunately, neither the video nor the text of the post supported the headline.

“Fiend wants a quota on how many boos before they get answered. How many slurs against any Republican before the Lefties renounce it?”

You are the one stating it was only “one idiot” that booed. You’re establishing a quota requirement. I’m simply asking what is the minimum number before it becomes an issue for you.

Number is irrelevant. The guy booed a self-serving question; you want to chalk it up to bad manners, go ahead, although I feel the same way about the Paulians cheering their Leader during the debate.

The fact is a lot of people oppose the legitimization of homosexuality, which has come about for solely political reasons, and have a right to do so, despite how the Left wants to stigmatize them.

“Then he should have put it in those terms. He didn't. The question was about his "job".”

Of course it was about his job – his job serving the country. Again, he’s concerned about his job in the future because of the position against DADT that Santorum and apparently other people in the audience hold.

Again, the issue is motivation - duty versus keeping a job - he put it in terms of, "It's all about me".

“So that makes it o.k. for your "team" to do it? See, this is why I find political types despicable.”

Did I state that the Democrats are my “team”? Maybe I don’t want my team, the Republicans, behaving this way.

"LOL. Comedy GOLD. Take note, everyone! Obama has been clear about the fact that his position is unclear!"

His position is not unclear. He has stated he supports same sex unions. He’s still thinking about the marriage issue. People think about and change their minds about issues all the time. Why can’t Republicans be honest about issues?

“So how long will this complicated evolution process take? Are we talking on a Darwinian scale? Will a black monolith appear in his bedroom one night and he'll touch it and turn instantly into a vast gay marriage supporting orbiting Star-Child?”

You’ll have to ask Obama.

“This "his position is evolving" idea has a name: horseshit.”

People think about and change their views on issues all the time.

“Again, this makes it o.k. for your "team" to play politics with people's rights... why, exactly? Because some people on the right wrongly want to use the government for social and moral engineering gives you license to do it too?

Again, I didn’t state the Democrats were my “team”.

“On the issue of civil marriage, as with so many other issues, the only good solution is to remove the government, and thus politics, from the equation altogether.”

Actually, I’m for removing religious influence from government. Marriages should be civil arrangements. If someone wants to do that in conjunction with a religious ceremony, that’s their business. But don’t use the government to force your religious beliefs on everyone else.

“Because, in his eyes, he shouldn't have to apologize; they're equally sinful. And, if he does think it's sinful, he should stick to his principles.”

That’s his view based on his religion. He can keep his religions views out of government. You know that whole separation of church and state thing. I imagine Savage believes he is sticking to his principles as well.

“Sorry, but I wouldn't take Huntsman's word for anything.”

Why not? And obviously a lot of other people heard the boo, hence the issue.

“Number is irrelevant. The guy booed a self-serving question; you want to chalk it up to bad manners, go ahead, although I feel the same way about the Paulians cheering their Leader during the debate.”

Again, as far as Stephen Hill’s question being stupid and self serving, I think given the position of some of the candidates, and obviously yours, on DADT, he had a legitimate question.

“The fact is a lot of people oppose the legitimization of homosexuality, which has come about for solely political reasons, and have a right to do so, despite how the Left wants to stigmatize them.”

They oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs, correct? Why should one group’s religious beliefs be used to dictate government policy for everyone?

“Again, the issue is motivation - duty versus keeping a job - he put it in terms of, "It's all about me".”

Well, what is the whole issue about opposing the legitimization of homosexuality? Isn’t that a “me” issue? People oppose it because of their “own” beliefs, right?

RE 36fsfiend at 2:22: Once again the old Koch brothers canard rears its tiresome head. Just because some rich guys help to fund a website doesn't mean that a movement isn't grassroots. You haven't established causation only very loose correlation.

If you want to see what an astroturf rally looks like, though, you might check out one where SEIU buses people in and has them carrying uniform, printed signs.

To clarify, (and it took me a minute to see it) 36fsfiend's reference, "Why doesn’t Santorum just apologize for comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality?", I believe refers to Santorum's well-publicized reaction to Lawrence v. Texas, in which Santorum said the ruling would open the way to legitimization of other sexual practices, such as incest and bestiality.

"RE 36fsfiend at 2:22: Once again the old Koch brothers canard rears its tiresome head. Just because some rich guys help to fund a website doesn't mean that a movement isn't grassroots. You haven't established causation only very loose correlation."

Even Republicans who dislike the Tea Party (and there are those-- especially among the Establishment GOP) don't believe that the Tea Party is astroturf-- the very idea would seem absurd. If the Tea Party really were astroturf, it wouldn't be so troublesome to the Establishment.

If your definition of a grassroots movement is one where absolutely no millionaires are involved, that is rather restrictive. Pretty much limits the term to small-time kooks who can't get anyone interested in their ideas.

“To clarify, (and it took me a minute to see it) 36fsfiend's reference, "Why doesn’t Santorum just apologize for comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality?", I believe refers to Santorum's well-publicized reaction to Lawrence v. Texas, in which Santorum said the ruling would open the way to legitimization of other sexual practices, such as incest and bestiality.

If he meant something else, I will happily stand corrected.”

Yes, you are correct. That’s where the “man on dog” comment came from which prompted the kerfuffle between Santorum and Savage.

Although some states permitted marriage between cousins based on age and no children requirements before Lawrence v. Texas, incest, for the most part, and bestiality are not activities between two consenting adults.

I wonder if Santorum believes the relationship between Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary and her partner Heather Poe is equivalent to “man on dog” sex?

"Even Republicans who dislike the Tea Party (and there are those-- especially among the Establishment GOP) don't believe that the Tea Party is astroturf-- the very idea would seem absurd. If the Tea Party really were astroturf, it wouldn't be so troublesome to the Establishment."

"Ask Boehner if the Tea Party is astroturf."

If there were truly grass roots, why would he and other non Tea Party Republicans be worried about a primary? Where's the Tea Party getting the money and backing to take on established or moderate Republicans?

“Grass roots is where lots of folks get together to do something about a common problem. They'll work at it regardless of whether they're getting money from someone with a lot of it.”

Correct, for example like what’s going on in New York and other cities right now.

“Astroturf is where lots of folks get together to do something if and only if someone whose problem the something is pays or otherwise enables them to do it.”

“If rich dudes (Koch bros) believe in the same thing as the grass roots people and fund their efforts, that does not turn grass roots into astroturf.”

The Tea Party and the Koch brothers both believe in small government, less taxes, less regulation and are against health care reform. Remember the town halls before the health care bill was passed. Don’t you think there was some high level backing behind those demonstrations?

“If the rich dude (Soros) instigates or encourages the outrage of people he then pays to be activists it stays astroturf.”

Here are some press releases from Americas for Prosperity, a Koch funded organization, calling for activism.

The Tea Party and the Koch brothers both believe in small government, less taxes, less regulation and are against health care reform. Remember the town halls before the health care bill was passed. Don’t you think there was some high level backing behind those demonstrations?

Demonstrations? They were town hall meetings, called by and organized for the politicians themselves - who got a greeting they weren't expecting. Nobody paid for them, and if they did, we taxpayers did so. What kind of idiot are you?

Folks, this guy ain't no conservative, or a Republican - he's a nutjob. You can string this shit out as long as you want, to amuse yourselves or whatever, but doing so makes you the rube here:

My response to Palladian’s comment that Obama is another parasite, looking for some new chumps to fall for his con, and that the HRC is a pathetic charade, a Democratic political arm masquerading as a gay rights advocacy group was that the Tea Party movement was founded by the Koch brothers and other billionaires and millionaires.

Are most Tea Party members billionaires and millionaires? Are billionaires and millionaires the ones going to town hall meetings and demonstrations? Who is using who in these situations?

Herman Cain wins Republican Women's Straw PollThe National Federation of Republican women held a straw poll at their 36th Biennial Convention in Kansas City on Saturday, 10/1/2011. Herman Cain won overwhelmingly with 48.9%.

Supporters of other candidates are now beginning to disparage straw polls. That's fair, but this straw poll was a little different. Just keep in mind that while straw polls are not elections, the emergence of Cain is unique. In order to vote in the Republican Women’s poll you had to be a delegate to their convention, unlike straw polls that can bus supporters in. Second, unlike Ron Paul, Cain does not represent a movement like the Libertarians who form voting blocs and can effectively overwhelm straw polls that make Paul look more popular than he is. Third, it takes more than a 75 cent taco to go to the Republican Women’s Convention is Kansas City (take it from me). Women have flown in from all parts of the country at significant expense to be there. Straw polls are not elections, but Cain gave an electrifying, persuasive speech to a cross section of active Republican women and got an overwhelming endorsement. And a final point, Republican women make up a lot of the worker bees during an election, passing out literature, going door to door, manning the polls. That’s why elected Republican officials pay them a lot of attention. Republican women did to go to Kansas City to give Herman Cain a win in the straw poll. The fact that he won big was solely due to his ability to convince the delegates that he was the one they wanted for President. That’s big.

"Demonstrations? They were town hall meetings, called by and organized for the politicians themselves - who got a greeting they weren't expecting. Nobody paid for them, and if they did, we taxpayers did so. What kind of idiot are you?"

They were some pretty civil town halls, weren't they? I always feel the need to carry a fire arm when I go to meet my representative (maybe they need to do that now in Arizona, though).

Nobody is paying for Americans for Prosperity I guess. And Charles Koch didn't actually say that "we are facing the mother of all battles" in this upcoming election when he was soliciting support from his fellow millionaires.

Barry is thumbing his nose. He's that kid who sat in the back of the class wearing shades and talked hip. Teach liked him, so he got good grades for being a wiseass. They bred like rats in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Now we pay.

Crack Emcee saysFolks, this guy ain't no conservative, or a Republican - he's a nutjob.

If you're talking about 36fsfiend, maybe he's not a conservative or Republican, but that doesn't make him a nutjob. In fact, his comments are a lot more logical and factually-based than your obsessive anti-New Age (defined as "anything Crack Emcee doesn't like") jeremiads.

Screw the President. You, you sanctimonious shit, had your CHILDREN sit in a church led by some bigoted idiots who blamed the same military guys you claim to love while sending them off to even more locales to be shot at for causing 9/11 to happen to us.

The same man who BAPTIZED your kids.

The same church you had no issues attending for TWENTY years.

But Republicans are evil because one person made a rude comment and was shushed down by the audience?

Your own party has basically called conservatives terrorists? YOU haven't said a word about it yet.

You are an affirmative action President who has been pushed far above his level of competency for his entire life.

How about Hoffa's implied threats to conservatives? You were THERE, you friggin' buffoon, and you didn't say a word. To this day.

And, 36, if you think Occupy Wall St is grassroots, you are a rather blatant moron.

“Screw the President. You, you sanctimonious shit, had your CHILDREN sit in a church led by some bigoted idiots who blamed the same military guys you claim to love while sending them off to even more locales to be shot at for causing 9/11 to happen to us.

The same man who BAPTIZED your kids.

The same church you had no issues attending for TWENTY years.

But Republicans are evil because one person made a rude comment and was shushed down by the audience?”

Again, Ann stated, base on her perception that only one person audibly yelled 'boo', the President’s meme was false and that his comments about being silent are delicious gibberish. I obviously disagree. I think one of the candidates on stage should have addressed the response. Again, according to ABC News:

several other candidates stated they did hear the boos ring through the Orange County Convention Center. If the Republicans want to behave that way, then way call out Wright?

“Your own party has basically called conservatives terrorists? YOU haven't said a word about it yet.”

Again, I never stated that the Democrats were my party.

“You are an affirmative action President who has been pushed far above his level of competency for his entire life.”

I guess that’s open for debate. Becoming president on either side is quite an accomplishment. Still not sure what that has to do with Stephen Hill’s question about a possible repeal of DADT and the response of the candidates to the audience member(s) booing.

“How about Hoffa's implied threats to conservatives? You were THERE, you friggin' buffoon, and you didn't say a word. To this day.”

Not sure what you mean about me being there. I haven’t been at any union demonstrations. And, again, Charles Koch implied Obamas was Saddam Hussein and that "we are facing the mother of all battles" in the upcoming election. Looks like both sides are guilty of over-the-top rhetoric.

“And, 36, if you think Occupy Wall St is grassroots, you are a rather blatant moron.”

The news reports that I read so far have stated the demonstration has not be organized and demonstrators don’t seem to have a single consistent message. But I’ll take your assessment under advisement.

Or are you another opportunistic political parasite using "my people's" struggle as another political wedge issue in your feeble attempt to keep your filthy grip on the levers of power?

Lol. Look everybody! Palladian OWNS the gay rights issue in EVERY RESPECT!!! He speaks for EVERY other gay person on it and therefore has the right to prevent other gays from finding their rights lacking and seeking straight folks who have those same rights, and commit the sin of AGREEING with them!!!

Behold his tyranny of the moral minority.

BTW, like the new avatar, with the Roman statues/(people?) scattered about near the windows.

Again, Ann stated, base on her perception that only one person audibly yelled 'boo', the President’s meme was false and that his comments about being silent are delicious gibberish. I obviously disagree. I think one of the candidates on stage should have addressed the response. Again, according to ABC News:

Chicken Little's newfound indignation over Obama's allegedly inappropriate and excessive indignation is what inspired me to go on another commenting streak over here.

I blame him.

Now I feel all dirty again. I promised myself no Althouse. But the easy political targets just revealed themselves to me, as if I was Dick Cheney and the bad arguments strewn about here were Harry Whittington's face.

My apologies, I thought your post was addressed to me. Yes, I agree that Obama should call out those in his own party who are using terms such as terrorists.

He has not done so, however. How much of a hypocrite is somebody who says somebody not doing something he won't do is not qualified to be the President?

No, it’s not a common happening. But it can be done.

I'm sure Van Jones --- quite well-connected in the world of big money "progressive" politics --- demand for this happening right before it happened is proof that this is totally grassroots and not bankrolled by his assorted Fascist supporters.

“He has not done so, however. How much of a hypocrite is somebody who says somebody not doing something he won't do is not qualified to be the President?”

Yes, it looks hypocritical in this case. But I do agree with the notion that one of those candidates on stage who is aspiring to be the Commander-in-Chief should have addressed the audience to clarify the issue. One of them could have stated that we can disagree and debate DADT but we shouldn’t boo a troop forward deployed during wartime. That would have put the whole issue to rest. It was a lost opportunity to demonstrate leadership.

“I'm sure Van Jones --- quite well-connected in the world of big money "progressive" politics --- demand for this happening right before it happened is proof that this is totally grassroots and not bankrolled by his assorted Fascist supporters.”

Santorum's point about curtailing the right of the State to regulate sexual activity does not make sodomy, beastiality, and incest equivalent as you've repeatedly claimed. Will the SCOTUS have to pull a national age of consent out of its ass, now that it's usurped more power from the states and the people?

So, you think there is some hidden pool of competence he has kept exceptionally well-hidden for a long time now?

Yes, it looks hypocritical in this case. But I do agree with the notion that one of those candidates on stage who is aspiring to be the Commander-in-Chief should have addressed the audience to clarify the issue.

When he does so himself, he then has room to speak on the issue.

What logistical support are you seeing in particular?

A bunch of kids who can't adequately manage a bowel movement is pulling this off? No. Not happening --- especially since the EXACT thing Van Jones called for is being done right now.

“Santorum's point about curtailing the right of the State to regulate sexual activity does not make sodomy, beastiality, and incest equivalent as you've repeatedly claimed. Will the SCOTUS have to pull a national age of consent out of its ass, now that it's usurped more power from the states and the people?

“We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

and:

“Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”

and:

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality”How do sodomy laws undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family? Do heterosexuals that have children not engage in oral sex?

Why the comment about homosexuality in the same breath with the “man on child” and “man on dog” references? What is Santorum implying here?

According to the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

Why do states need to be regulating the sexual activity of two consenting adults which both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological consider normal and positive variations of human sexuality? How does that harm heterosexual families? How are bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery linked to homosexual relationships?

Speaking of adultery, to me adultery and divorce is the greater threat to marriage. When are all these anti-gay groups going to push for a constitutional amendment against adultery and divorce?

“So, you think there is some hidden pool of competence he has kept exceptionally well-hidden for a long time now?”

It depends on how you define success. From a strictly Republican vs Democrat perspective, probably everything Obama does will be considered a failure from the Republican point of view.

If you measure success by comparing what Obama campaigned to do and what he has accomplished then that will yield a different result. He campaigned and achieved health care reform, ending the deployment of troops in Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan, dismantling Al-Qaeda and ending DADT for some examples. The economy is doing poorly and he hasn’t closed Gitmo. I don’t know how historians and scholars of the presidency factor success in that case.

On a personal level, that will depend on how things are going for you. The corporations and wealthy seem to be doing OK. The middle class and poor, not so good.

“When he does so himself, he then has room to speak on the issue.”

You’re going to have to call out virtually all politicians in that case. Gingrich was engaging in adultery while at the same time leading the impeachment proceeding against Clinton, as one example.

“A bunch of kids who can't adequately manage a bowel movement is pulling this off? No. Not happening --- especially since the EXACT thing Van Jones called for is being done right now.

You don’t give the youth of America much credit. Again, any specific references to logistic or financial support?

"You’re going to have to call out virtually all politicians in that case. Gingrich was engaging in adultery while at the same time leading the impeachment proceeding against Clinton, as one example."

While I don't really care about Gingrich one way or the other, it should be noted that he engaged in adultery but Clinton was impeached for (among other charges) perjury. The conflation of the two ("They impeached Clinton for getting a blowjob!!!!") should be corrected wherever seen, so people of an age too young to have experienced the whole affair (forgive the term) will fully understand the seriousness of what Clinton did. The Senate engaged in an especially blatant example of jury nullifcation.

It depends on how you define success. From a strictly Republican vs Democrat perspective, probably everything Obama does will be considered a failure from the Republican point of view.

Obamacare increases health care costs. The stimulus retarded economic growth. His jobs bill is unlikely to help with any jobs. He openly opposes attempts to provide work and provides ample benefits to companies who do what he wants in spite of their being quite terrible economically. He had his administration funnel guns to Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to denigrate the 2nd Amendment.

Where the heck are his successes?

If you measure success by comparing what Obama campaigned to do and what he has accomplished then that will yield a different result. He campaigned and achieved health care reform, ending the deployment of troops in Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan, dismantling Al-Qaeda and ending DADT for some examples. The economy is doing poorly and he hasn’t closed Gitmo. I don’t know how historians and scholars of the presidency factor success in that case.

He campaigned that Obamacare would take care of rising health care costs. It actually makes them worse.

He campaigned on leaving Iraq within 18 months. He is now governing on Bush's agreed to deadline before he came into office -- and trying to get Iraq to extend it out longer.

He doubled down on Afghanistan and that is a quagmire you don't get out of easily.

AQ is no more dismantled now than it was when he entered office (they were pretty well smashed before he entered the picture).

It took him three years and simply allowing a court to rule against law to end DADT. Let's not act as if it was a courageous or even impressive move by him.

He ALSO said Libya would only take weeks --- we're still there with no signs of leaving.

He said he'd improve our standing in the Muslim world --- we're even more hated now.

He said his policies would be deficit neutral. He has produced record deficits every single year.

He said he'd not name commissions to kick the can down the road --- and then named a deficit commission and ignored their recommendations.

You’re going to have to call out virtually all politicians in that case. Gingrich was engaging in adultery while at the same time leading the impeachment proceeding against Clinton, as one example.

Gingrich also stepped down from office in spite of committing no crime over it. So, he felt a leader shouldn't be in office with that --- and proceeded to not be in office any longer.

Obama called for "civility" and then proceeded to attack Republicans virulently and incessantly. He said he wouldn't sit back and allow people to slur other Americans --- after sitting back repeatedly and watching others do that (including his VP).

You don’t give the youth of America much credit. Again, any specific references to logistic or financial support?

Hmm, unions marching along with it. Anything unions do is NEVER "grass roots" anything.

That alone is more proof of astroturfing than anything involving the Tea Party.

Why do states need to be regulating the sexual activity of two consenting adults which both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological consider normal and positive variations of human sexuality? How does that harm heterosexual families? How are bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery linked to homosexual relationships?

You are aware activists in those groups are trying to normalize pedophilia, right?

B4U-ACT is agitating to have pedophilia removed from the DSM-V. And given the mushiness of the APA, the odds of success for them is distressingly high.

“While I don't really care about Gingrich one way or the other, it should be noted that he engaged in adultery but Clinton was impeached for (among other charges) perjury. The conflation of the two ("They impeached Clinton for getting a blowjob!!!!") should be corrected wherever seen, so people of an age too young to have experienced the whole affair (forgive the term) will fully understand the seriousness of what Clinton did. The Senate engaged in an especially blatant example of jury nullifcation.”

Yes, the original investigation dealing with Whitewater and the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit got expanded when Starr learned about Lewinsky falsifying information in a subpoena for the Jones case. If there was no Lewinsky there would have been no lying for a blowjob.

“It took him three years and simply allowing a court to rule against law to end DADT. Let's not act as if it was a courageous or even impressive move by him.”

Repeal was passed by Congress. The Log Cabin Republican’s case has been declared moot by the court.

“He ALSO said Libya would only take weeks --- we're still there with no signs of leaving.”

I don’t recall him saying it would only take weeks. And it has been primarily been a British and French operation.

“He said he'd improve our standing in the Muslim world --- we're even more hated now.”

Why, exactly?

“He said his policies would be deficit neutral. He has produced record deficits every single year.”

Interesting discussion on the causes of the debt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

GWB had a lot to do with the situation we are in now. The financial collapse also occurred on Bush’s watch.

“He said he'd not name commissions to kick the can down the road --- and then named a deficit commission and ignored their recommendations.”

Can you help me with a link on that claim?

“Gingrich also stepped down from office in spite of committing no crime over it. So, he felt a leader shouldn't be in office with that --- and proceeded to not be in office any longer.”

Yes, and now he is running for higher office. I don’t know which states Gingrich committed adultery in, but it is still a crime in some states, although not prosecuted that often. Adultery is also against the commandments which I assume Gingrich follows as a Christian.

“Obama called for "civility" and then proceeded to attack Republicans virulently and incessantly. He said he wouldn't sit back and allow people to slur other Americans --- after sitting back repeatedly and watching others do that (including his VP).”

Concur.

“Hmm, unions marching along with it. Anything unions do is NEVER "grass roots" anything. That alone is more proof of astroturfing than anything involving the Tea Party.”

Which unions? I know the airline pilots had a separate rally for one day but I don’t think they were that linked with the other non-union protestors.

"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child...."

Yes, and as I previously asked, why is the comment about homosexuality in the same breath with the “man on child” and “man on dog” references? Santorum seems to be implying that although homosexuality is not literally “man on child” or “man on dog” it is in the same category, i.e., detrimental to families and child rearing.

Thus, I ask again, why do states need to regulate the sexual activity of two consenting adults which both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association consider normal and positive variations of human sexuality? How does homosexuality harm heterosexual couples and their ability to procreate? How are bigamy and adultery, which are violations of the marriage vow, and polygamy and incest, which have been both practiced by Biblical figures, linked to homosexual relationships?

"If there was no Lewinsky there would have been no lying for a blowjob."

And yet lie under oath he did. Of his own free will and with the full knowledge of the significance of what he was doing. I suppose we could argue over whether he suborned perjury or obstructed justice, but even he admitted to perjury. And yet you still desperately attempt to conflate it with a blowjob. Not "He was impeached for a blowjob!" but instead "He wouldn't have been impeached but for the blowjob!" Wrong. He wouldn't have been impeached but for the perjury. Whenever and wherever I hear someone say it was about a blowjob, I WILL inject facts into the conversation.

And none of this even touches on the loaded issue of a sexual relationship between a superior and a subordinate (which I strongly suspect some people would say is automatically harrassment regardless of consent; many of these same people would give Clinton a pass).

Oh, Obama is nasty? Whenever he goes unscripted a big chance is he is mean, unless he is ignorant. My biggest fear at the moment is that he will purposefully do unrepearable harm to the country, from the moment he realises he is not going to be re-elected.

I don’t disagree that Clinton was impeached for perjury. I’m just pointing out that the original investigation was not about Lewinsky and her relationship with Clinton. The scope of the investigation was expanded after the Independent Council received information that Lewinsky was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the Jones case and that Lewinsky was prepared to provide false information under oath in that lawsuit.

“And none of this even touches on the loaded issue of a sexual relationship between a superior and a subordinate (which I strongly suspect some people would say is automatically harassment regardless of consent; many of these same people would give Clinton a pass).”

My understanding is that most economists believe it was not large enough. Krugman

I'll go ahead and cut it off here. Nobody takes Krugman seriously on economics any longer. That boat sailed when he became just a tedious progressive shill for every cause.

It was the largest stimulus in history and did nothing beneficial but likely hampered recovery. Cash for Clunkers killed used cars. His housing proposals has led to the death of that sector of the economy as well.

I don’t recall him saying it would only take weeks. And it has been primarily been a British and French operation.

You are correct. I am wrong.

President Obama said he expected that the period that the US would be involved in heavy kinetic activity would be "days, not weeks,"

...while, mind you, ignoring the War Powers Act he claims to support.

Interesting discussion on the causes of the debt:

An already debunked chart is not an interesting discussion. As a rule, when you see the phrase "Despite what antigovernment conservatives say" in what is claiming to be analysis, you don't have analysis.

You have a small problem. The last budget Bush signed was the 2007-8 budget (the Dems refused to send a budget for 2008-9 until Obama was in the WH). His last deficit was $459B. Obama's first? $1.845T.

About 4 times as much.

Can you explain why?

And a few more issues.

1) The "Bush tax cuts" were signed into renewal by Obama in 2009. How is it not under him?

2) Obama has significantly increased the troops in Afghanistan --- yet it is all attributed to Bush. He also pulled nobody out of Iraq, and that is ALSO attributed to Bush alone.

3) Nobody knows where the $773B in stimulus and other changes from the 2008 stimulus comes from since it was scored to only cost $150B.

If you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, Obama is about 4 times as bad as Bush was.

Can you help me with a link on that claim?

9/17/08, Denver, CO:

"John McCain's big solution to the crisis we're facing is -- get ready for this -- a commission," Obama told the crowd. "A commission. That's Washington-speak for we'll get -- we'll get back to you later."

Obama continued, "You know, folks, we don't need a commission to figure out what happened. We know what happened: ... We don't need a commission to tell us how we got into this mess, we need a president who will lead us out of this mess, and that's the kind of president I intend to be."

• The national debt. On Feb. 18, 2010, Obama established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The commission’s co-chairs – former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson of Wyoming – were asked to "bring Republicans and Democrats together" to tackle the nation's "looming fiscal challenges."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/01/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-use-presidential-commissions/

He then proceeded to not introduce their proposals at all. In fact, he proposed a budget 2 months later that got zero votes in the Senate.

Which unions? I know the airline pilots had a separate rally for one day but I don’t think they were that linked with the other non-union protestors.

The Transit Workers Union voted unanimously to support it. As did United Federation of Teachers, 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, and Workers United.

"I’m just pointing out that the original investigation was not about Lewinsky and her relationship with Clinton."

I understand that. I wonder how many people who feel sorry for Clinton about how matters developed (though it's all good now, isn't it?) also feel badly for poor Scooter Libby. Nailed for perjury in an investigation that continued after the investigator had the information he sought.

“big increases that occurred last year were probably driven by insurance plans overestimating what the impact would be and maybe trying to take some profits upfront before some of the changes in the Affordable Care Act occur.”

Companies making profits. Just like the airlines that didn’t pass on the savings to the customers when the federal 7.5 percent tax on tickets wasn’t being collected during the partial shutdown of the FAA in July and August.

DeParle also said that “once health care reform fully takes hold in 2014 and beyond, employers will have more tools and more ability to help bring down costs,” she said, including the new health insurance exchanges.

Your judging the success of a program before it is even fully implemented.

Regarding the CBO analysis, by 2016 non-group market premiums, comprising 17% of the market, would increase by 10 to 13% but over half would receive subsidies which would decrease the premium paid to "well below" that under current law. For the small group market, comprising 13% of the market, premiums would be impacted 1 to -3% and -8 to -11% for those receiving subsidies. For the large group market, comprising 70% of the market, premiums would be impacted 0 to -3%

I don’t know. Looks like some increases and some decreases. Again, the plan has not been fully implemented.

“I’ll go ahead and cut it off here. Nobody takes Krugman seriously on economics any longer. That boat sailed when he became just a tedious progressive shill for every cause.”

Why. The tremendous government spending program called World War II is what pulled this country out of the recession of the 1930s.

“It was the largest stimulus in history and did nothing beneficial but likely hampered recovery. Cash for Clunkers killed used cars. His housing proposals have led to the death of that sector of the economy as well.”

Opponents argued that the economy would be no worse off without the stimulus. There actual was improvement in the economy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

Cash for Clunkers accomplished what it was designed to do:

The program accomplished what it was set out to do, which was to get consumers back into the showrooms and to jump-start new-vehicle sales.

The housing market is down due to the mortgage crises. People are not selling, and consequently not buying, because they are underwater from the 2008 bust.

“An already debunked chart is not an interesting discussion. As a rule, when you see the phrase "Despite what antigovernment conservatives say" in what is claiming to be analysis, you don't have analysis.”

The data is from the Congressional Budget Office. Why should I doubt that information?

“You have a small problem. The last budget Bush signed was the 2007-8 budget (the Dems refused to send a budget for 2008-9 until Obama was in the WH). His last deficit was $459B. Obama's first? $1.845T.”

Yes, attributed to the lose of revenue after the economic collapse, which occurred under Bush, and the nearly $800 billion stimulus program to try to get the economy moving again, a third of which was more tax cuts per insistence of the Republicans.

“1) The "Bush tax cuts" were signed into renewal by Obama in 2009. How is it not under him?”

“2) Obama has significantly increased the troops in Afghanistan -- yet it is all attributed to Bush. He also pulled nobody out of Iraq, and that is ALSO attributed to Bush alone.”

The troop increase in Afganistan is not attributed to Bush. Obama campaigned on doing that. However, he sent around 30,000 not the 40,000 initially requested. Forces are drawing down in Iraq. They are discussing leaving a contingent of around 3,000 troops for training but that still depends on Iraqi approval.

“3) Nobody knows where the $773B in stimulus and other changes from the 2008 stimulus comes from since it was scored to only cost $150B.”

Are saying Congress doesn’t know what legislation it passed?

“If you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, Obama is about 4 times as bad as Bush was.”

Yes, initially, for the reasons mentioned above. This should be decreasing based on the debt ceiling deal and work of the Super Committee.

"John McCain's big solution to the crisis we're facing is -- get ready for this -- a commission," Obama told the crowd. "A commission. That's Washington-speak for we'll get -- we'll get back to you later."

“Obama continued, "You know, folks, we don't need a commission to figure out what happened. We know what happened: ... We don't need a commission to tell us how we got into this mess, we need a president who will lead us out of this mess, and that's the kind of president I intend to be."

He’s referencing the use of a commission in a time of crisis. Not for long term planning.

“The national debt. On Feb. 18, 2010, Obama established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The commission’s co-chairs – former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson of Wyoming – were asked to "bring Republicans and Democrats together" to tackle the nation's "looming fiscal challenges.:

This was a commission for proposed long term planning. This wasn’t for an emergency situation like the economic collapse in October 2008.

“He then proceeded to not introduce their proposals at all. In fact, he proposed a budget 2 months later that got zero votes in the Senate.”

He wasn’t satisfied with the austere measures recommended by the bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I imagine for some of the same reasons the balanced approach, or grand bargain, as it was called was not agreed to during the debt ceiling crisis.

“The Transit Workers Union voted unanimously to support it. As did United Federation of Teachers, 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, and Workers United.”

Thanks for the info. The unions are coming on board as Occupy Wall Street continues, i.e., they see some success. But, as I understand the situation, the unions were not involved with the initial planning or organization of this demonstration. I seems to have truly started as a grassroots demonstration.

"I understand that. I wonder how many people who feel sorry for Clinton about how matters developed (though it's all good now, isn't it?) also feel badly for poor Scooter Libby. Nailed for perjury in an investigation that continued after the investigator had the information he sought."

Libby was involved with disclosing the identy of a covert CIA agent involved with our program on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. For all we know, people in her network may have been killed once her identty was revealed. No one that I'm aware of died because of Clinton's indiscretions with Lewinsky

Regarding the CBO analysis, by 2016 non-group market premiums, comprising 17% of the market, would increase by 10 to 13% but over half would receive subsidies which would decrease the premium paid to "well below" that under current law.

That isn't reducing anything. That is the government spending more money we don't have and simply passing the expenses on to later generations.

Why. The tremendous government spending program called World War II is what pulled this country out of the recession of the 1930s.

False.

Eradicating the developed world did that. Also, stopping most of the New Deal regulations ALSO did that, and those stopped effectively in 1938.

By many accounts, Hoover and FDR's actions made the Depression worse. If they did nothing, it would've likely ended long before it did.

...like it did for most of the world. We were one of the last countries to emerge from it.

Opponents argued that the economy would be no worse off without the stimulus. There actual was improvement in the economy:

The lack of figures to actually back that up --- you know, like unemployment or GDP getting significantly better --- is a problem.

The program accomplished what it was set out to do, which was to get consumers back into the showrooms and to jump-start new-vehicle sales.

...at the expense of charities, used car sales to this day (prices have increased about 10% since they destroyed about 700,000 used cars). And auto sales tanked HARD the month after it ended (over 22% reduction) and stayed low for months afterwards.

All for only $3B.

The housing market is down due to the mortgage crises. People are not selling, and consequently not buying, because they are underwater from the 2008 bust.

The home buyer's tax credit simply pushed up sales very temporarily and the market, well, has been crap ever since. The market has tanked ever since. His mortgage proposals have made the problems worse. His continual bailing out of Fannie is causing more problems.

Yes, attributed to the lose of revenue after the economic collapse, which occurred under Bush, and the nearly $800 billion stimulus program to try to get the economy moving again, a third of which was more tax cuts per insistence of the Republicans.

The economic collapse, which occurred after Democrats gained control of Congress and passed terrible bills, hurt revenue. And Obama then increased spending.

The troop increase in Afganistan is not attributed to Bush. Obama campaigned on doing that.

Review your chart that you cited. ALL of the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is attributed to Bush.

All. of. it.

And shall we go into Obama's human rights violations? Is killing somebody better than capturing them? Because Obama is big about killing anybody.

However, he sent around 30,000 not the 40,000 initially requested. Forces are drawing down in Iraq.

He expanded Afghanistan to virtually no benefit and is following Bush's agreement with the Iraqis to have us withdrawn this year.

Are saying Congress doesn’t know what legislation it passed?

Nobody knows where the NYT pulled this number from. It wasn't in any CBO study. The CBO said it was about 20% of that. The NYT has never said where they pulled that figure from.

And if we take this to extremes, Medicare/Medicaid are all LBJ's issue and nobody else's. Imagine how low the deficits would be if those weren't included in a conservative's figure. And imagine how much worse Clinton's numbers would've been without mass accounting fraud being committed for years under his weak SEC.

Yes, initially, for the reasons mentioned above. This should be decreasing based on the debt ceiling deal and work of the Super Committee.

It's not (continually increasing spending and NOT doing much for GDP is usually a bad combo). And the Dems are shooting for tax hikes only...since spending clearly can't be the problem in a budget that has DOUBLED in size in 10 years.

He’s referencing the use of a commission in a time of crisis. Not for long term planning.

Again, re-read his comments. He was referring to commissions...period. And we are in a deficit crisis, whether you like that reality or not. Our credit rating was reduced --- thanks to Obama --- for a reason. And the president is doing nothing to help anything.

He wasn’t satisfied with the austere measures recommended by the bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I imagine for some of the same reasons the balanced approach, or grand bargain, as it was called was not agreed to during the debt ceiling crisis.

Obama produced zilch in writing. He never has. The Republicans have proposed multiple proposals. Shame that they are the ONLY ones doing so. He asked for a balanced approach --- and Simpson/Bowles provided a balanced approach. He's not serious about this, but given the paucity of his competency, it shouldn't be a shock.

Libby was involved with disclosing the identy of a covert CIA agent involved with our program on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. For all we know, people in her network may have been killed once her identty was revealed. No one that I'm aware of died because of Clinton's indiscretions with Lewinsky

Who died from Armitage revealing Plame's name after Wilson wrote a false op-ed in the NYT? And given that the investigation was ALL about who gave the name to Novak and that was known to the prosecutor well before he spoke to Libby, it was a laughable investigation.

“That isn't reducing anything. That is the government spending more money we don't have and simply passing the expenses on to later generations.”

You left out this section about the small group market, comprising 13% of the market, where premiums would be impacted 1 to -3% and -8 to -11% for those receiving subsidies and for the large group market, comprising 70% of the market, where premiums would be impacted 0 to -3%. These are forecasted increases and decreases. The program has not been fully implemented so who knows what exactly will occur. I’ll reserve judgment until then.

“Eradicating the developed world did that. Also, stopping most of the New Deal regulations ALSO did that, and those stopped effectively in 1938.”

Eradicating the developed world certainly contributed to our economic prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. The mobilization of the country and the war time economy got the nation out of the recession of the 1930s.

“By many accounts, Hoover and FDR's actions made the Depression worse. If they did nothing, it would've likely ended long before it did.”

The New Deal got the nation out of the depression but concern over deficient spending resulted in the New Deal being scaled back. That led to the follow on recession.

“The lack of figures to actually back that up --- you know, like unemployment or GDP getting significantly better --- is a problem.”

From this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

“…the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs.”

“The $814 billion stimulus program enacted by the Obama administration at the start of 2009 boosted the US economy by as much as 4.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, keeping unemployment below 10 percent, congressional analysts said on Tuesday.”

“ ...at the expense of charities, used car sales to this day (prices have increased about 10% since they destroyed about 700,000 used cars). And auto sales tanked HARD the month after it ended (over 22% reduction) and stayed low for months afterwards.”

Paul Taylor, chief economist at the National Automobile Dealers Association, stated Cash for Clunkers accounted for about $18.2 billion of retail sales. It also spurred a lot of secondary economic activity--taxes paid, dealership advertising, overtime wages for dealership employees.

Sounds like the program did what it was intended to do.

“The home buyer's tax credit simply pushed up sales very temporarily and the market, well, has been crap ever since. The market has tanked ever since. His mortgage proposals have made the problems worse. His continual bailing out of Fannie is causing more problems.”

The housing market tanked with the economy in 2008. Here was part of the problem:

“The economic collapse, which occurred after Democrats gained control of Congress and passed terrible bills, hurt revenue. And Obama then increased spending.”

Where was the Treasury Department, under Paulson (a former Goldman Sachs CEO), and the SEC, which didn’t catch Madoff after eight audits, during the run up to the collapse? Was anyone in the Bush Administration minding the store while we headed for disaster?

I’m not saying that that tax increase didn’t occur under Obama. However, he wanted the increase only for individuals making over $200K and families making over $250K. The Republicans and Big Dogs wouldn’t go along with this plan – they wanted the cuts to remain in effect for everyone. There wasn’t the necessary support for Obama’s plan in Congress.

“Review your chart that you cited. ALL of the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is attributed to Bush.”

Those charts breakout the programs of each president and show how they contributed to the deficit. The wars were Bush’s programs. Obama could not just decrease them to zero the day he took over.

“And shall we go into Obama's human rights violations? Is killing somebody better than capturing them? Because Obama is big about killing anybody.”

“After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. ‘They are then part of the enemy.’”

“He expanded Afghanistan to virtually no benefit and is following Bush's agreement with the Iraqis to have us withdrawn this year.”

Afghanistan was the central base for Al-Qaeda, you remember, the organization that attacked on 9/11. The drawl down timeline for troops in Iraq was kept on the Bush schedule based on inputs from the war fighting Joint Force Commander. Obama was listening to his generals.

“Nobody knows where the NYT pulled this number from. It wasn't in any CBO study. The CBO said it was about 20% of that. The NYT has never said where they pulled that figure from.

Can you provide a link with the details about how the stimulus bill was scored to only cost $150B? That doesn’t make sense.

“And if we take this to extremes, Medicare/Medicaid are all LBJ's issue and nobody else's. Imagine how low the deficits would be if those weren't included in a conservative's figure.”

Medicare and Medicaid are included in the comparison of both Bush’s and Obama’s policies. They’re a wash as far as comparisons are concerned.

“And imagine how much worse Clinton's numbers would've been without mass accounting fraud being committed for years under his weak SEC.”

Can you provide a link with the derails of this accusation?

“It's not (continually increasing spending and NOT doing much for GDP is usually a bad combo). And the Dems are shooting for tax hikes only...since spending clearly can't be the problem in a budget that has DOUBLED in size in 10 years.”

We’re not going to get out of the debt problem with spending cuts alone. It’s going to take a combination of spending reductions and revenue increase either through a revise tax code to close loop holes and eliminate subsidies or an increase in marginal rates.

“Again, re-read his comments. He was referring to commissions...period. And we are in a deficit crisis, whether you like that reality or not. Our credit rating was reduced --- thanks to Obama --- for a reason. And the president is doing nothing to help anything.”

Obama’s words:

"John McCain's big solution to the crisis we're facing is -- get ready for this -- a commission," Obama told the crowd. "A commission. That's Washington-speak for we'll get -- we'll get back to you later."

We were in a crisis that demanded an immediate response. We didn’t have time for a commission to study the situation and get back to us later. You can do that in a situation that allows for a long term course of action but not during a crisis which we definitely were in at the time Obama made that statement.

“Obama produced zilch in writing. He never has. The Republicans have proposed multiple proposals. Shame that they are the ONLY ones doing so. He asked for a balanced approach --- and Simpson/Bowles provided a balanced approach. He's not serious about this, but given the paucity of his competency, it shouldn't be a shock.

Simpson/Bowles was only about spending cuts - a non starter. Deficit reduction is going to take both cuts and revenue increases. Obama has provided written plans for his Jobs bill and deficit plan. Have you look through them?

“Who died from Armitage revealing Plame's name after Wilson wrote a false op-ed in the NYT? And given that the investigation was ALL about who gave the name to Novak and that was known to the prosecutor well before he spoke to Libby, it was a laughable investigation.

We’ll probably never know if any people in her network were killed after her identity was revealed since she was a covert agent and her contacts would also be covert. Why do you state Wilson wrote a false op-ed? He reported what he discovered in Niger after Bush continued to make the false allegation that Iraq was attempting to procure Yellow Cake from Niger for a nuclear weapons program that didn’t exist.